India’s Civic Nationalism Under Growing Political Strain

Former Indian Vice President Mohammad Hamid Ansari has reopened a long-running debate over the relationship between nationalism, religion and constitutional identity in India. Speaking at the A.G. Noorani Memorial Lecture in New Delhi on 18 September 2026, Ansari referred to a historical warning attributed to former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru that the greater danger to India was not communism but Hindu right-wing communalism. He used the reference while discussing the writings of constitutional expert and author A.G. Noorani and concerns about a perceived movement from civic nationalism towards cultural nationalism.

Ansari’s intervention has generated a political controversy, with the Bharatiya Janata Party and other critics strongly rejecting his characterization. The BJP has described the remarks as objectionable, while supporters of Ansari argue that they reflect a legitimate constitutional debate about the relationship between religious identity and citizenship. The controversy is therefore not limited to one speech; it touches upon a broader question that has accompanied Indian politics for decades — whether national identity should be defined primarily through constitutional citizenship or increasingly through cultural and religious identity.

The discussion gains significance because India’s political environment has simultaneously attracted sustained international scrutiny over religious freedom and minority rights. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom’s 2026 Annual Report stated that religious-freedom conditions in India deteriorated during 2025. It cited concerns involving legislation affecting religious minorities and houses of worship, attacks on Muslims and Christians, and the treatment of people described by authorities as illegal migrants. USCIRF again recommended that India be designated a Country of Particular Concern.

Human Rights Watch has similarly documented increased hostility towards Muslims and other minorities. Its World Report 2026 recorded at least 64 incidents of anti-Muslim hate speech during the first ten days following the April 2025 Pahalgam attack. The report also described attacks against Muslims in several Indian states and raised concerns about the treatment of Bengali-speaking Muslims and Rohingya refugees. These developments provide an important context for the debate over whether political and religious polarization is affecting the position of minorities in Indian society.

The issue extends beyond communal rhetoric into questions concerning state institutions and accountability. Human Rights Watch, citing National Human Rights Commission figures, reported 113 deaths in police custody, 1,535 deaths in judicial custody and 132 alleged extrajudicial killings during the first eight months of 2025. These figures do not by themselves establish the causes or responsibility in individual cases, but they demonstrate the scale of concerns surrounding custodial deaths, alleged abuses and accountability within India’s security and justice systems.

Jammu and Kashmir has been another major area of international concern. Following the 22 April 2025 Pahalgam attack, United Nations experts reported that Indian authorities launched extensive security operations across the region and that around 2,800 people, including journalists and human-rights defenders, were arrested or detained. The UN experts condemned the terrorist attack while emphasizing that counter-terrorism measures must remain consistent with international human-rights obligations. Their intervention illustrates the continuing tension between India’s security concerns and international scrutiny of civil liberties in the region.

The wider debate also extends beyond India’s domestic borders. Canada’s Security Intelligence Service reported in 2025 that India had historically cultivated covert relationships with Canadian politicians, journalists and members of the Indo-Canadian community to advance its interests. CSIS specifically described alleged transnational-repression activities involving surveillance and coercive tactics intended to suppress criticism of the Indian government and create fear within communities. At the same time, the Canadian agency distinguished peaceful Khalistan advocacy, which it considers lawful political activity, from a smaller group involved in violent extremist activity.

These international assessments are contested politically and should be understood in their respective institutional contexts. India maintains its own security concerns, particularly regarding terrorism, separatism and national sovereignty, while Indian officials and political actors have repeatedly challenged criticism from foreign governments and rights organizations. The existence of such competing positions makes the domestic constitutional debate particularly significant.

Ansari’s remarks therefore place the question of Indian secularism and nationalism back into public discussion at a politically sensitive moment. His reference to Nehru was not simply a historical observation; it was presented in the context of what he described as contemporary challenges to civic nationalism. The central concern is whether electoral majorities and religious majorities are increasingly being treated as synonymous, potentially altering the understanding of equal citizenship in a formally pluralistic republic.

The debate over Hindutva and the BJP-RSS ideological ecosystem is consequently part of a much larger argument about the future character of the Indian state. Supporters of Hindutva emphasize cultural identity, civilizational heritage and national cohesion, while critics raise questions about minority protections, constitutional secularism and the potential consequences of majoritarian politics. These competing interpretations continue to shape political discourse inside India.

For India, the significance of this debate extends beyond party politics. The country’s constitutional framework, treatment of religious minorities, security policies in Jammu and Kashmir, and approach to dissent all contribute to how its democratic institutions are perceived domestically and internationally. Ansari’s intervention has once again brought these questions into focus, demonstrating that the argument over civic nationalism, cultural identity and the meaning of equal citizenship remains an active and contested issue within the Indian republic.